indian_buddhist wrote:....It is true that one acts on the other . Its obvious that one acts on the other . But it would help to demarcate between the arising and falling away of each of these aggregates.

No.That would be a mistake, because they can overlap, and they are not sequential. They can vary in intensity, and are co-dependent.While we can describe the different processes, separating and demarcating is neither possible nor necessary.

Personally, I don't think, in ordinary everyday parlance, you can speak of all mental formations, perceptions and consciousness as being 'defiled'. It's a very strong term to describe, for example, the processes you go though when witnessing something beautiful (by definition) happening, like a flower blooming, or a dragonfly emerging form its pupaeic shell...

Both, to be sure, are indicators of impermanence, but I cannot consider them as 'defiled'...

I think this is how the mind should be trained. First develop Wisdom which cuts the process of formation of Mental Kamma/Defiled Perception/Defiled Conciousness.

This I can see as being valid....

Feelings are that - Pleasant/Unpleasant depending on the situation. I think Wisdom has no role here.

On the contrary. I believe it is of essential and vital importance here.

Wisdom cannot control the type of feelings you feel. When there is a Bad odour there is a Bad odour, everyone would feel that there is a Bad odour. It is how you react to the bad odour which is important.

Which is where Wisdom is most certainly required; to ensure the discernment is not clouded by the conditions leading to Suffering.

Please Correct me If am wrong in my analysis anywhere.

Not wrong; mistaken. But there again, that is just my perception.I may well be completely incorrect.....

You will not be punished FOR your 'emotions'; you will be punished BY your 'emotions'.

Pay attention, simplify, and (Meditation instruction in a nutshell) "Mind - the Gap." ‘Absit invidia verbo’ - may ill-will be absent from the word. And mindful of that, if I don't respond, this may be why....

Spiny Norman wrote:So does feeling always come before perception? If for example I see something / somebody I don't like, doesn't the perception come first?

Spiny Norman you raise the same issue I have always had. If perception is classified as recognition, then does this not influence the type of feeling that arises? But as the Buddha clearly states, it appears that feeling influences perception:

"For what one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes."

Can anyone offer an explanation of this?

Last edited by Phena on Fri May 02, 2014 10:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I think this is how the mind should be trained. First develop Wisdom which cuts the process of formation of Mental Kamma/Defiled Perception/Defiled Conciousness.

Feelings are that - Pleasant/Unpleasant depending on the situation. I think Wisdom has no role here. Wisdom cannot control the type of feelings you feel. When there is a Bad odour there is a Bad odour, everyone would feel that there is a Bad odour. It is how you react to the bad odour which is important.

Please Correct me If am wrong in my analysis anywhere.

Hi Indian Buddhist,

The bad odor isn't always perceived as "bad." The wisdom knows this, and to some extent (or even completely) that can influence the feelings which arise.

For example, when a person visits a sewer plant... some people would react to the odors very strongly, while others are not bothered as much.

Also interesting is that this can apply to a "pleasant" odor... for example, jasmine flower smells like death to some. The flower actually gives off chemicals which are similar to what are released from a decomposing body. Many people are unaware of this.

Spiny Norman wrote:So does feeling always come before perception? If for example I see something / somebody I don't like, doesn't the perception come first?

The 3 aggregates of Feeling, Perception, Formation belong to what's called the mental factors group(cetasika) which doesn't operate in a linear/sequential fashion. If we really have to say which one comes first, then using your example, I'd say Form and Consciousness. First that something or somebody has to show up, comes within range, and one needs to be "conscious" of that object. The "contact" of the object, the sense organ, the sense consciousness would then spawn the 3 mental factors.

Rupa isn't even physical, in the sense of being the body, because there is rupa, as an aggregate, for every sense sphere, including e.g. ear and mind. So the rupa in these cases is just the external aspect of contact, while feeling-perception-consciousness is the internal aspect together with awareness of the nexus of these two aspects, which is to say, contact.

Parsing the aggregates is done in order to see that any aspect of any sphere of experience is necessarily of those five, and impermanent, and therefore anatta, and not worth upadana. One doesn't need to see every thing in the universe to see how the principle of impermanence applies to -experiencing- itself; the aggregates aren't what make up the person, they are what make up any possible experience.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

....One doesn't need to see every thing in the universe to see how the principle of impermanence applies to -experiencing- itself; the aggregates aren't what make up the person, they are what make up any possible experience.

Beautifully put.

You will not be punished FOR your 'emotions'; you will be punished BY your 'emotions'.

Pay attention, simplify, and (Meditation instruction in a nutshell) "Mind - the Gap." ‘Absit invidia verbo’ - may ill-will be absent from the word. And mindful of that, if I don't respond, this may be why....

I think this is how the mind should be trained. First develop Wisdom which cuts the process of formation of Mental Kamma/Defiled Perception/Defiled Conciousness.

Feelings are that - Pleasant/Unpleasant depending on the situation. I think Wisdom has no role here. Wisdom cannot control the type of feelings you feel. When there is a Bad odour there is a Bad odour, everyone would feel that there is a Bad odour. It is how you react to the bad odour which is important.

Please Correct me If am wrong in my analysis anywhere.

Hi Indian Buddhist,

The bad odor isn't always perceived as "bad." The wisdom knows this, and to some extent (or even completely) that can influence the feelings which arise.

For example, when a person visits a sewer plant... some people would react to the odors very strongly, while others are not bothered as much.

Also interesting is that this can apply to a "pleasant" odor... for example, jasmine flower smells like death to some. The flower actually gives off chemicals which are similar to what are released from a decomposing body. Many people are unaware of this.

I think you are right, Perception influences the type of feelings we experience. A defiled Perception can perceive a pure feeling as defiled and vice versa.

daverupa wrote:Rupa isn't even physical, in the sense of being the body, because there is rupa, as an aggregate, for every sense sphere, including e.g. ear and mind. So the rupa in these cases is just the external aspect of contact, while feeling-perception-consciousness is the internal aspect together with awareness of the nexus of these two aspects, which is to say, contact.

So are you saying that feeling-perception-consciousness represents our contact with form? And if so, do formations inform this contact?

"I ride tandem with the random, Things don't run the way I planned them, In the humdrum."Peter Gabriel lyric

Spiny Norman wrote:So does feeling always come before perception? If for example I see something / somebody I don't like, doesn't the perception come first?

Spiny Norman you raise the same issue I have always had. If perception is classified as recognition, then does this not influence the type of feeling that arises? But as the Buddha clearly states, it appears that feeling influences perception:

"For what one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes."

Can anyone offer an explanation of this?

I find it puzzling - it actually looks like reverse order to me.

"I ride tandem with the random, Things don't run the way I planned them, In the humdrum."Peter Gabriel lyric

daverupa wrote:Rupa isn't even physical, in the sense of being the body, because there is rupa, as an aggregate, for every sense sphere, including e.g. ear and mind. So the rupa in these cases is just the external aspect of contact, while feeling-perception-consciousness is the internal aspect together with awareness of the nexus of these two aspects, which is to say, contact.

So are you saying that feeling-perception-consciousness represents our contact with form? And if so, do formations inform this contact?

The mental formations are defilements as far as i know. These mental formations can be deep-rooted within the mind or latent needing the right contact to come up. These mental formations affect the Feelings, Perceptions and consciousness making them defiled too. You can check with others too on this...

daverupa wrote:Rupa isn't even physical, in the sense of being the body, because there is rupa, as an aggregate, for every sense sphere, including e.g. ear and mind. So the rupa in these cases is just the external aspect of contact, while feeling-perception-consciousness is the internal aspect together with awareness of the nexus of these two aspects, which is to say, contact.

So are you saying that feeling-perception-consciousness represents our contact with form? And if so, do formations inform this contact?

Well, that sounds like you might be taking feeling-perception-consciousness as some sort of self, or as the individual. But that's not what the aggregates are - they don't make up a person the way legos make up a structure, they deconstruct any given experience. The proper way is to investigate whether any of these facets of experience are self, permanent, clung-to, and so on, not to wonder where the person is and what their parts are.

MN 2 wrote:“This is how he attends unwisely: ‘Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what did I become in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I become in the future?’ Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the present thus: ‘Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where will it go?’

Sankhara ('formations') are involved as a sort of moral velocity; upadana here can be complex, everything from attachment to rites & rituals to an attachment to certain outcomes in conversations, and so on. Somewhere there's a sutta where the Buddha describes how, when teaching, he is unperturbed whether the people there listen, do not listen, or are a mixed bag. This, I think, would be an example of sankhara without upadana.

---

The fact that there can be the aggregates without any clinging at all should put to rest ideas that they are inherently defiled.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

daverupa wrote:Well, that sounds like you might be taking feeling-perception-consciousness as some sort of self, or as the individual. But that's not what the aggregates are - they don't make up a person the way legos make up a structure, they deconstruct any given experience. The proper way is to investigate whether any of these facets of experience are self, permanent, clung-to, and so on, not to wonder where the person is and what their parts are.

Yes, Dave, point taken. I was trying to explore the functional difference between the feeling-perception-consciousness on the one hand, and formations on the other. Perhaps it's analogous to the distinction in an organisation between front-line and back office functions?

"I ride tandem with the random, Things don't run the way I planned them, In the humdrum."Peter Gabriel lyric

Spiny Norman wrote:I was trying to explore the functional difference between the feeling-perception-consciousness on the one hand, and formations on the other. Perhaps it's analogous to the distinction in an organisation between front-line and back office functions?

I don't think they're quite separate like that. "Feeling" is a consciousness (of the pleasantness, unpleasantness, etc.); perception is a "feeling;" also, consciousness is a "feeling" (as a result of the contact between object and a sense base), and also a "perception;" Separating all of these out would be a "perception" ( which is of namarupas).

Spiny Norman wrote:I was trying to explore the functional difference between the feeling-perception-consciousness on the one hand, and formations on the other. Perhaps it's analogous to the distinction in an organisation between front-line and back office functions?

I don't think they're quite separate like that. "Feeling" is a consciousness (of the pleasantness, unpleasantness, etc.); perception is a "feeling;" also, consciousness is a "feeling" (as a result of the contact between object and a sense base), and also a "perception;" Separating all of these out would be a "perception" ( which is of namarupas).

I can see it's difficult to separate out the different aspects of the feeling-perception-consciousness process. I was asking if there was a functional difference between this trio and the formations.

"I ride tandem with the random, Things don't run the way I planned them, In the humdrum."Peter Gabriel lyric

Maybe you can say it's the hyphens in feeling-perception-consciousness - the stitching.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

Rupa all that say do not have any feeling. In Abhidhammattha Sangaha, there are 28 rupa. All (material and some non-material) are all in this rupa. As a human-being max. rupa we have will be 27 (male or female characteristics, every few will have both)

Perception simply say like this whenever we see, hear, smell, taste, touch (feeling physically) and we realize, know what they are. It's perception. We have must Perception to be able to know what we see, hear, smell, taste, touch before going to the process of knowing through mind. Kind of memory in the object or non-object.

Viññana (consciousness) can be understood like that of soul.

Sankara - in all there are 52 mental formation (52 types of cetasika. But Vedana and Perception are also cetasika, thus Sankara is the remaining (50 cetasika). As some have already mentioned earlier, Sankara is the one that form or shape Conciousness Vinnana (mind, soul etc.) to be good or bad.